Re: XLink 1.1: 5.4 "URI reference" unclear

* Grosso, Paul wrote:
>>>Fair enough. Do you not feel that the note in 1.2.3 of 3986 covers our
>>>use of the popular and historically accurate term "relative URI"?
>>>
>>>      NOTE: Previous specifications used the terms "partial URI" and
>>>      "relative URI" to denote a relative reference to a URI.  As some
>>>      readers misunderstood those terms to mean that relative URIs are
>a
>>>      subset of URIs rather than a method of referencing URIs, this
>>>      specification simply refers to them as relative references.
>>
>>That might cover it, but I don't see why XLink 1.1 should not use more
>>appropriate terminology.
>
>The XML Core WG reconsidered the issue and had consensus to
>stick with the better-known term "relative URI".  
>
>Does this adequately address your comment, or do you wish for
>the XML Core WG to record your feelings on this matter as an 
>official objection when we request CR?

No, I already said I don't see why XLink 1.1 should use obsolete and in
this context incorrect terminology; this now appears in "If the value of
the href attribute is a relative URI, ..." It's incorrect, the specific
text also applies if it's a "relative IRI", for example. I don't agree
the XLink 1.1 specification should have such errors.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

Received on Wednesday, 25 January 2006 18:58:15 UTC